Jump to content

Talk:Billings, Montana/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Between X and Y (again)

I'm curious to know why we are so attached to saying that Billings has things that are the biggest/tallest/(whatever adjective you want) between Denver and Calgary and between Sioux Falls (or Minneapolis) and Spokane. We currently claim to have the biggest metro area (which is fairly true), but the "region" is still pretty ill-defined in my opinion. Salt Lake City, Boise, Rapid City, and Regina, Canada (all of which have higher city and metro populations that us) could all vaguely fit into this region depending on how someone decided look at it on a map. I do understand that some people feel that it sets up the area around Billings, but those names are pretty much useless to anyone to isn't familiar with the geography of this region. (Which is probably the majority of people who don't (and probably some who do) live in this area) Now, my problem isn't entirely with using it to say we have the biggest metro area around, but I feel the problems start when we try to claim that such-and-such building was or is the tallest building in this region. While Emporis does back up the fact that First Interstate Building is the tallest building in this region, it doesn't back up that statement for the Crowne Plaza and the Wells Fargo Plaza. So now, if someone wanted to verify that fact, they would have to do a bit of research as to what the tallest building was in any number of areas during a certain year to actually verify that it's a true fact. Overall, I'm wondering why we're trying to use a region that isn't really all that defined. A. L. H. 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Does not pointing out the area between X and Y define it? I am kind of sure that is why editors do the X and Y thing. If I'm from point z32 and don't know where point X or Y is then I look up point X and Y. And isn't that what encyclopedias are about: a place to do research not somewhere to miraculously fined every answer to every question without doing some research. One nice thing about wiki is the links that sometimes make that research easier so I can find out where X and Y are. Denver Calgary Seattle and Minneapolis are not that obscure. Encyclopedias are a research tool the research has still got to be done. I would never take anything on any online encyclopedia as a FACT without checking and rechecking the sources minimum of three times back is what they thought me in college and that is already no longer the standard, slippery slope. Linda Rider (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So, to verify that the population of Billings is 105,636, you would need to look at the United States Census data three times before you believed it? I find this to be rather absurd, and I'm not entirely certain as to how you think that it is at all relevant to my question. Nor do I understand why asking for things to be easier to verify is a slippery slope. In fact, I don't think you even answered anything that I asked in the slightest. Obviously encyclopedias are research tools and they are not meant to be the only place that one should do research. The thing is, it is stated in WP:V that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."
So what's our reliable source for saying "it is the largest metropolitan area between Denver and Calgary and between Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Spokane, Washington."? To verify that, one would have to first learn what the borders of the region are (which to me is the equivalent of giving a math student four points and telling them to find the line without any other information), and then look at quite a bit of census data to prove that that fact is true, which I would never trust when you consider the possibility of human error. Also, lots of other cities do explain where they are geographically, but they seem to go about it differently. Denver (a GA, by the way) "is the most populous city within a 500-mile (800 km) radius and the second most populous city in the Mountain West and the Southwestern United States after Phoenix, Arizona." The first says that no matter which direction you look, there won't be another city as big as Denver for at least another 500 miles. The second and third regions are actual regions that one can easily look up more information on through wikilinks.
And what's the reliable source that we have for "It is the center of a large area, bordered by Minneapolis, Minnesota to the east and Seattle, Washington to the west, Calgary, Alberta (Canada) to the north and Denver, Colorado to the south."(from the Economy section)? Has a major economist ever said that Billings is the center of this economic area? Otherwise, all that's been done is that four cities have been chosen to create an area and Billings is in the center of it. You can do this for any city.
As for the buildings, to determine that Wells Fargo Plaza was indeed the "Tallest building from Spokane to Bismarck, North Dakota and between Denver and Calgary from 1977-1980" also requires quite a bit of verification. Again, you have to figure out what is in this region, and what isn't. Then, you have to systematically prove that there wasn't a single building within this region that was taller than what was then the Norwest Bank from 1977-1980. Of course, with the First Interstate Building, it's clearly state on Emporis that it is the "Tallest building between Spokane, Minneapolis, Denver and Calgary." Which is nice until you consider this: "If you are interested in architecture and want to submit and edit information about buildings, join our community." (http://www.emporis.com/buildings) That's a bit problematic if you ask me. Especially since Emporis claims that the estimated height of the Yellowstone County Courthouse is 230 ft, technically making it the third tallest building in Billings. So, should we be trusting Emporis? I would have to guess no. So then off the researcher goes in an attempt to verify that a claim made on Wikipedia might have a bit of truth to it.
Finally, here's a few facts: Boise and Salt Lake City are both closer to Billings than Denver and Spokane, Regina is closer to Billings than Calgary and Souix Falls are, and Fargo is closer to Billings than Sioux Falls. Boise, Salt Lake City, Regina, and Fargo are all bigger than Billings in terms of population and metro population. Salt Lake City has 10 skyscrapers that are taller than the First Interstate Building. Still think this is a clearly defined region? A. L. H. 07:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
JMO, but I think this whole discussion is a waste of time. Billings is the biggest city in Montana and has the tallest buildings in Montana. That's relevant. We need to say it and source it. Beyond that, who gives a flying f**k about other states? We could say, "the closest city to have a bigger population is X" or "the closest city with a taller skyscraper is Y" which might be sourceable, though what is the significance? Billings is the biggest dog on the block for Eastern Montana, Western North Dakota and Northern Wyoming, so we need sources to explain that relevance, perhaps. But otherwise, does anyone other than the Billing Chamber of Commerce have any reason to include the "mine's bigger" claims? Seriously? Who else cares? (I don't mean this to be as snarky as it sounds, it's a sincere question). Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I felt I should be nice for once if my life and give the editors that like to use this region a chance to prove that it's significant/verifiable. Notice how long that lasted. A. L. H. 09:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW I tend to agree that the regional comparison stuff really doesn't work here. Saying it's the tallest building in the state is one thing, and a reasonable observation, but beyond that it just sounds silly. Intothatdarkness 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is starting to get a bit long. Is there any opposition to me inserting a template that would allow a bot to archive any conversations that haven't gotten a reply in, say, 31 days? A. L. H. 19:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Make it 90 days and I'd be fine with it. This article doesn't get a lot of traffic. Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine. I'll wait a little while longer in case anyone else has some thoughts. A. L. H. 23:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I like the 90 day idea. Waiting a little while longer sounds like a good idea as well, many of this pages editors don't seem to check in that often. Sara goth (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been four days, and all the main editors of this page have raised their opinions. I'll go ahead and implement it to archive conversations older than 90 days. ALH (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sections"

Regarding this: "There are currently 11 official first level of districts called "sections" within the city limits of Billings, Montana." Does anyone know if there's anything to back this up? I haven't been able to find anything on the city website besides information about the wards of Billings. ALH (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I ask because I'm wondering if Sections of Billings, Montana is going to need to be renamed. ALH (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My own view is that we need to pass WP:RS and WP:V as we write, as if this article ever goes to GA, it's a lot easier to do it right than to do it over. I know that Billings has "neighborhood" designations that may not necessarily align with city council wards, but we would need sourcing, for sure! I hope that Sara or Linda can provide source materials, maybe ping Sara, she edits kind of intermittently. Montanabw(talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that I remember seeing a city PDF with sections...but that may just be fuzzy memory...let me look around. I mean as far as the people of the city go I know you can say the heights or north park, South Park, midtown, downtown, the tree streets, central-terry, briarwood, Shiloh, rehburg ranch, highlands, yellowstone country club, westend and people will know what you are talking about but those are really more areas or hoods. The city council wards that Montanabw pointed out may be the way to go. But let's do a little research first.Sara goth (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(Giggling at Sara calling Billings neighborhoods, "hoods" LOL! You badasses, you!) But yes, either pdfs or maybe an article in the Gazette or something. Possibly realtor sites or the Chamber of Commerce... other possibilities... Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on now Montana..."in the parlance of our times" as the Dude would say...hood is pretty common real people speak. I am pretty far from a badass...I don't really even understand what sounds bad ass about that but if it made you giggle then that means it made you happy and if it made you happy that makes me happy!Sara goth (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm over 50, it's a generational thing - the word didn't show up in popular white people slang until about the time of Boyz n the Hood. So it's amusing me to apply it to Billings (though parts of the South Side may well qualify, these days, I will admit...) Montanabw(talk) 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a generational thing. Besides being at least ten years out of date, "hood" ever being used to describe a section of any Montana city sounds ridiculous. Shall we next be referring to Huntley as "the projects"? Dsetay (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's funny because I do (jokingly) refer to, all of Huntley Project, which includes more than just Huntley itself, as the projects. not because it is a rough area just because it is called Huntley Project. The south side gets a bad rap, I'm not really sure why, maybe because of the way it was a long time ago. It is a historic part of town with a lot of neighborhood pride. I can assure you when I wrote hood I simply meant neighborhood sorry if that offended anyone but I do tend to agree with Montanabw that it is generational.Sara goth (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this will pass WP:RS, but is this a more-or-less accurate map? http://www.city-data.com/nbmaps/neigh-Billings-Montana.html The city of Billings has a different breakdown here, is it more accurate" http://ci.billings.mt.us/index.aspx?NID=512Montanabw(talk) 04:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Follow up:Ooh! Uber RS source: City of Billings map: http://ci.billings.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/21458

Hwy 87 in the heights

Need a citation for "busiest highway" claim. Seems a pretty dubious claim, as many state highways have branches running through town, (can't possibly be busier than the stretch of Hwy 93 going through Missoula, for example, as that is a major north-south corridor that you can't go around) though perhaps there is a caveat to add that makes it accurate. But at any rate, a source is needed. Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the site, but it's still dubious, the source only lists tables of raw numbers, as far as I can see, and I'm not sure where the "busiest" designation comes from (am open to seeing which page number or other analysis provides this, or if a newspaper article did the synthesis of the data.) Frankly, I can't even see how the Heights could possibly be busier than N 27th...? Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is another one [1] the heights if it were a city by its self would be a city about the size of Bozeman. Because of geography there is pretty much only one way in and out of the heights and that is highway 87. It is for about five miles a six and seven lane street, that at morning and evening rush hour can be time consuming to be kind. The fact that it is really the only way in and out of the heights became a major safe issue with the 2010 Fathers Day Tornado . With the help of Montana's elected officials other routes are being worked on or have been completed. Many people that visit billings are never even aware of the heights,heck lots of people in the rest of billings aren't.

I agree north 27th and south 27th are very busy, I driver both most everyday. However I' am pretty sure King avenue west, also six lanes, Grand avenue, Broadwater avenue, 24th street west, Shiloh, 1st north, 4th north, 6th north and maybe even 1st avenue south and Centeral have more traffic.

Personal note: it took me two and a half hours to get out of the heights after the 2010 tornado. Sara goth (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have lived in the Heights for years and agree entirely with Sara Goth. It has a large population and one main exit. Here's an editorial from the Billings paper: "Billings got a look at what happens to traffic when Montana's busiest street is shut down. The Father's Day storm forced closure of Main Street for part of a day. Getting around the Heights was tough; getting through Billings required a nearly 30-mile detour ...." in "Improving Heights traffic flow, safety" Billings Gazette (July 28, 2010) online -- and a different source: "Main Street in the Billings Heights is the busiest roadway in the entire state of Montana, with 40,000 vehicles rolling down the street every day." ["Connecting the Heights and West end on pause" by Amanda Venegas Dec 6, 2010 KTVQ news report Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"Roadway" is not quite synonymous with "highway," but I am OK with the KTVQ source if we use "roadway". I hadn't factored in the choke point effect (no way to Main off the rims other than that one big intersection by the Metra? I though Alkalai Creek road connected Hwy 3 to the heights, or does that merge with the airport road? Hmmm.) The powerpoint is interesting, but we really can't use its numbers because it doesn't say where they got them or how they compare to others. Ideally it would be good to compare those numbers with some of the other busy corridors (US 93 in particular; Reserve in Missoula is just about as much of a disaster at rush hour). However, if you want to pop in the KTVQ source, I'll not object if you toss the tags. But we still don't have to repeat it in the photo caption. I can live with the KTVQ source, as they did the data synthesis, presumably. The hardcore editors over at the Missoula article may still argue with your numbers, but that's their problem.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


This is an even better source, the Montana department of transportation fact book page 13 http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/factbook.pdf

Sara goth (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better source, IMO. Good find! Intothatdarkness 14:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Uses "Roadway" , "Main Street" and is very specific as to the section of road. I'm OK with that. Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Meetup in Billings

Hello! I am coordinating a meetup for Wikipedia Day in Billings. It will be January 15th from 6pm to 8pm at the new Billings Public Library. Using a page at meta to organize. It is at m:Meetup/Billings/1. Please spread the word to anyone who may be interested. If you would like to encourage any non-Wiki folks to attend, they can visit either Billings Public Library or Kaleid. I also have flyers in pdf and jpg format if anyone would like. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this the Parmly Library on Broadway, or is there some other facility? (Clarify for the out of towners...) Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Understandable confusion - The Parmly library is being torn down. In January the new library - Billings Public Library - will be in nearly the same location, just shifted one lot toward 6th Ave. So the corner of Broadway and 6th Ave. I don't believe the parking lot will be finished so parking will be on a side street. The entrance for this event will be on 6th Ave because of the ongoing construction. (personally not a fan of the new boring name). Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
the session is going on right now & Tbennert is doing a great job--thanks. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

👍 Like Sorry I could not go over there; had work stuff here. But would love a report and how many people you got to turn out! Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Annual events

I removed a gay pride weekend which was listed as "some years". This was actually parodied(sp) on TMZ. Is there better sourcing for this event? Thanks in advance. --Malerooster (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a source on the event from the Billings Gazette. That should handle it. It's not annual event in Billings, it moves around the state. Montanabw(talk) 06:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Since its not an annual event, I wouldn't include it. --Malerooster (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Its not a "regularly" occurring event either, so don't include, even with new verbage. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree, it is significant that Billings is in the rotation for the event. Let's not have an anti-gay attitude here. Montanabw(talk) 01:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with the "anti-gay" attitude, that is offensive. --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, why else do you think this should be removed if not to make LGBT people invisible? Do you want to argue that gay people have no place in Billings? Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That's plain stupid. I already told you above. TMZ pointed out what a joke this entry was, so I addressed it. It still shouldn't be included, your strawman argument aside. --Malerooster (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Since when is TMZ a reliable source? That was the moment you lost me on this one. TMZ is a tabloid. Shall we next cite the Daily Mail or National Enquirer? Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Billings, Montana

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Billings, Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

League/Team

I changed the Magic City Rollers description back to "league" after Wild Bill Hiccup added "team". It is actually a league, with teams within it. https://magiccityrollers.com/about/ Dlthewave (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

At least if it were a team, it would imply that they were seen in other cities. As it is, I can't see any indication that this is any more important than a Little League or a bowling league. I oppose any inclusion about this entity at all. John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I went ahead and removed it. Dlthewave (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Billings, Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Billings, Montana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://ci.billings.mt.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6103
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billings,_Montana/Archive_2&oldid=1166051712"